What nonsense. Increase frequency, reduce core flux for a given voltage and number of turns , so make a smaller core at the original flux density. Nothing to do with Chris's rubbish. Much to do with Faraday.
Hello ppl, I does written something about why a series of loop is not equal to a loop mutiplied here. Maybe it is helpful. Core Magnification of Magnetic field as a Parallel Path Phenomena By Euler Cheung
06/03/2006 > If you make a single loop of wire bent into a circle and pass a regulated 1
--------- First of all, what theory indicates this?. The best you can say is that there is a region near the center where the field is nearly uniform. The size of the region is dependent on the size of the loop.
-----------
And if the loop diameter is tight enough and enough turns are present and close enough, that is true. So what? It is explainable.
---------
----- You have been through this all before. The problem is that you have shown nothing new or exciting. I have, on hand, an engineering textbook, which evaluates the forces on moving charges in terms of the electric field. For charge e1 moving at velocity v1 and charge v2 moving at velocity v2 F=(1/c^2)(q1v1 X(v2 X E21) where E21 is the electric field at q2 due to q1 Define B= (1/c^2)(v2 X E21) and you get F=q1(v1 X B ) which is the Lorentz force equation (ignoring coulomb force)
A brief, less than one page, analysis then the text gets on to useful electromagnetics in terms of measurable quantities . This particular reference was originally written 40 years ago and the material has been know and observed in physics for far longer. You have added nothing except conjecture.
Note B is the magnetic flux density. Note also that B can be measured and no unmeasurable "virtual photons" are needed. On the basis of this, one can say the magnetic field is due to electrostatic effects between moving charges. While this may be the source of the magnetic field, the field is not ficticious. Magnetic field concepts are based on what was and is observable. All that you have is a more complex way of trying to define what is easily defined now. Now how is a virtual photon any more real than a magnetic field. Can you detect such a photon? The only reason to consider a photon is that some cannot conceive of a force without a mechanical interaction so come up with something virtual which can go bump in the night.
Is there any reason to bother using a more complex approach to handle a problem when the complexity adds nothing? It has apparently led you into strange ideas with regard to transformers and adding copper screens etc.-ideas which fly in the face of facts.
Wow! Another undiscovered use for the optical isolator!
That's nothing, really. One of his proposed fusion devices involved a hydrogen-filled toroid with the "doughnut hole" 0.5 centimeters across, wound with 10 turns of copper wire sized to carry 400 amps.
On 15 Jul 2006 19:39:42 -0700, "Euler Cheung" Gave us:
bwuahahahah... Top posting retard. Your theory is lame as well.
SNIP
Back to Phat Bytstard, eh DimBulb?
The frequency distribution of the photons emitted from a light bulb is totally *unrelated* to the frequency of the AC current flowing through the filament.
The only way to double the frequency of the 'average' photon from an incandescent light bulb is to change the filament's temperature. For a flourescent bulb, you would need to change out the internal gas.
But neither would require changes in the applied current's frequency.
daestrom
Try that.
True
There is no "magnetic" field connected to an isolated moving charge. The lorenz force requires both a moving charge close to a fixed charge of the opposite sign.
That whole book you read out from is based on the wrong principle.
40 years out of date, based on wrong concepts based on faulty observations 300 yrars ago by perfectionists mathmeticians of the logically flawed pythagorean school.We use the concept of a "Gin".
It is just an alternative that works better based on modern physics around fynaman.
There is no basis in physics for a magnetic field. None.
My brain removal does not help and the malignant killer who did it deserves to be beheaded. Now!
1)What photons? Their presence in transformer action, "virtual" or not, is a conjecture which requires a leap of faith without justification. Does that mean that increasing the temperature of the transformer increases the power transfer due to increased photon emission? [no]. Can one make a transformer such that any possible photon path between windings is blocked but the transformer still works? [yes] 2)Note that doubling the supply frequency does not increase the power transfer in a transformer. The effect of frequency on any given transformer is well known and covered in many texts. 3) As I said before, from Faraday, you can come up with (as does any basic text on Electromagnetic machines) a relationship between voltage, magnetic flux, frequency and turns. No photons needed. Note that the relationship does NOT involve power or need to invoke (incorrectly) quantum mechanics. 4) Considering the characteristics of the magnetic core, then it is also easy to show that there is an ampere turn balance. Taking this into account with (3), you end up with a power transfer relationship which , lo and behold, incidentally agrees with conservation of energy. Do these non-quantum approaches work? [extremely well]. Are they simpler to use? [very much so].
Quantum mechanics is all very well but there are areas, and this is one, where this tool is not appropriate.
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:31:54 -0400, krw Gave us:
Spelling issues? Even when it is right in front of your face. Figures.
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:36:02 GMT, "The Real Chris" Gave us:
ANY shorted turn on a transformer takes ALL of its power capacity, and renders it a mere heat generating device.
--------
1) what part of what I said do you not understand? Note that the first equation represents mathematically what has been measured. 2)Since when does the Lorentz force reduce to this? You have given no basis for this, nor can you (particularly the opposite sign part). It is, however, relatively easy to disprove this experimentally. Are you confusing the coulomb force component of the Lorentz force with the "magnetic" component- it appears so.----- Since none of the observations made by anyone 300 years ago have any bearing on this, what is your point? Where have the concepts failed to explain observed behaviour? In what way are they wrong, except that you say so.
------
------------ Ok then, you want to substitute a ficticious "virtual photon" which cannot be measured or detected for a ficticious magnetic field which is easily measured or detected. Then you want people to swallow ideas that do not work and will not work (i.e. the shield concept and your private version of the Lorentz force equation) on the basis of your misconceptions. By the way, the name is Feynman, not fynaman.
No way. You are a troll, or as you say of yourself, "My brain removal does not help"
Truth is king, tupos aside.
You *ARE* Roy L. Fuchhead in a recycled nym (I was wondering when you'd change, though even I thought you'd be more original). I'm just warning the uninitiated that you're still the same idiot.
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:36:07 -0400, krw Gave us:
No, actually... you are.
I'm not the one nym-shifting, but you're welcome.
Hello,
Ok measure the magnectic field due to beam of electrons.
Ok measure force on a electrostatically charged object close to an electrically neutral wire carrying one amp dc.
And compare with the predictions of your theory.
Oh and send me some magnetic field in an envelope, please use a stamp.
What is the mass of a magnetic field?
Did you know that the mass of a photon is hf/c^2 you can measure it by using a mirror system with some trapped photons inside and measure the increase as you add photons, use a gravity pico gram balance.
Magnitic field! Bah science fiction! Farady did not know special relativity or quantum mechanics - bless his soul! Oh by the way a shorted turn takes no power unless its resistance is substantially more than zero. As in a wave guide it is a reflector.
I think we all know that high frequency transformers are more efficient and smaller the low frequency ones. The greatest loss in a transformer is the iron core which I maintain is unesseccary as the high permeabilty is only needed betwen the windings and the photons are carried by spin-spin interactions.
Photon shield between windings (called an electrostatic screen) is influenced by skin depth which at 50 hertz is quite long. A shorted screen between layers of windings would make the transformer non functional.
Quit arguing and go about and build a simple one and do some simple measurements.
Oh by the way: How many half brains make one?
Chris.
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:47:03 GMT, "The Real Chris" Gave us:
The transformer examples I gave operate at 150kHz and use ferrite cores. Doesn't matter though. A shorted turn still renders the entire transformer useless, and yes, it does use power.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.